Reply to IVF embryos are people too

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "IVF embryos are people too"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos.  Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process.  For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0).  Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized.  In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division.  Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer.  So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos.  Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4?  What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer?  Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away.  That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".[/quote]

This case is a very basic principle and decision: the term embryos is all encompassing whether that embryo is located inside a womb or not. Under Alabama law, an embryo is a person. Period; end of story; case closed. I mean that’s really all there is to it. The court’s opinion was that the case was very simple. There is no exception. They wouldn’t care if the embryo was on Mars. Embryo = life = child.

The basic premise could be used to legislate against IUDs and other forms of birth control that interfere with an embryo, for having a miscarriage, for the medical courier dropping the delivery of the frozen embryos and causing them to be damaged, for a power company to be liable for all the embryos that die during a power failure of the cryogenic storage, for the ICSI tech/embryologist damaging an embryo…the possibilities are endless.

Technically it seems under this ruling the only type of IVF that would be legal would be single egg retrieval which is rarely done. [/quote]

Single egg retrieval is exactly what the concurring opinion detailed. Try one egg only for each Ivf cycle to avoid having multiple embryos/children in a freezer. [/quote]

There are are still too many things that go wrong and the even the one embryo is non viable.  I don't see that the clinic could risk being involved in this.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics